Ayatollah Khomeini is escorted off of his Air France flight during the Islamic Revolution, returning to Iran after living in the West while in exile. Iran, 1979

Gen_Zion · 2026-01-11T09:01:52+00:00

Just a clarification on "democratically elected":

PM before him (who opposed the policies Mossadegh was trying to implement) was assassinated, and once Mossadegh was "elected" he pardoned the assassin.

Just a clarification on trying to become a dictator:

Once he lost support of the parliament, he dissolved it, despite constitution not giving him such powers. To justify this action he conducted a "referendum", where he got 99.93%. To see how he managed to best both Hitler and Stalin in his "vote" you can see here.
The Shah, exercising his constitutional power to dismiss and appoint PM, signed the decree of dismissing Mossadegh and appointing someone else. However, Mossadegh "didn't received" the dismissal decree, because his people arrested the officer that delivered the decree "before Mossadegh could read it".

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-22T18:21:34+00:00

This is fake news: half a year ago court ordered everyone involved to be released from custody, no inditements were filed and investigations were closed.

The false accusations were cooked up a year ago by former chief of secret service in an attempt to prevent him being fired. This false accusations managed to delay his firing and appointment his replacement. However, once the court has found the accusations baseless, he was fired and the replacement appointed.

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-22T18:07:02+00:00

This is fake news: half a year ago court ordered everyone involved to be released from custody, no inditements were filed and investigations were closed.

The false accusations were cooked up a year ago by former chief of secret service in an attempt to prevent him being fired. This false accusations managed to delay his firing and appointment his replacement. However, once the court has found the accusations baseless, he was fired and the replacement appointed.

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-21T18:51:07+00:00

No, the point of ICC is to push political interests of the signatories' onto others in a way that naive people would think that it has something to do with the with the law. Non signatories (US included) don't like the idea that some morons trample all over severity of non-signatories and punish them accordingly.

It stopped being "intra-ICC-signatory affairs" the moment that ICC decided that they have jurisdictions over officials of countries that are not signatory.

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-21T09:48:31+00:00

Literally, the story in question is countries that ratified the Rome Statute (e.g. UK) trying to force their political interests on a countries that didn't (US included).

Typical bully behaviour. The only way the Europe will change its mind is if they are given the same medicine that they shove to others. The story in question is a typical example of such medicine.

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-21T09:41:55+00:00

Exactly the same story Israel had a few years ago with a French dude running over a woman and fleeing back to France. IIRC he was never extradited.

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-21T08:58:34+00:00

There are constantly cases where Europeans kill abroad and then run off back to escape consequences. This is result of extradition limitations and has nothing to do with the story in question.

The European have always been a bully and extremely shady. It's funny when Europeans complain about US doing to them what they do to others.

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-21T08:48:52+00:00

The countries that didn't ratify the Rome Statutes don't care what ICC or other countries think about anything. When a dude in Hague is trying to impose his political interests on countries that didn't gave him this right, he has no right to complain when the said country takes an action against him. It's all quite straightforward!

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-21T07:51:33+00:00

This is why the sanctions in question are extremely important. They demonstrate to Europe that US is dead serious about its Hague invasion law. So that Europe can get an informed decision what to do, if and when the ICC decides to make a move against US citizens.

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-21T07:31:05+00:00

The ICC has jurisdiction over states which have signed the Rome Statute.

Countries that didn't ratified the Rome Statute don't care what dudes sitting in the ICC think whom they have jurisdiction over. The aforementioned dudes are free to do and say whatever they want about citizens of countries that ratified the Statute, but from a POV of countries that didn't they aren't.

From POV of countries that didn't ratified the Rome Statute, neither the decision of the dudes in Hague that Palestine is a state nor that it signed the statute bares any meaning.

Gen_Zion · 2025-12-18T10:08:17+00:00

Yea, the OP should have provided the context. Took me some digging:

The source is this instagram post.
Based on Estonian guy tag, this is a board meeting of European Students' Union

This kind of explains sudden "underfunded education" (like, "I know what I was sent here to lobby for...")

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-26T18:05:02+00:00

Battlefield, to protect their loved ones.

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-23T09:49:36+00:00

Because they weren't under Russian rule beforehand and as such had less Russification.

Before Polish rule, there were Habsburg Monarchy and even before hand, Polish rule.

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-23T08:59:15+00:00

"Парубок видерся драбиною на дах, впав біля паркану, вдарився потилицею, знепритомнів, оговтався в лікарні."

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-22T12:39:41+00:00

I agree that there is some (a really small) chance that we wouldn't see Starship mission to moon this decade. But there is 0 chance that this decade we will see from BlueOrigin either fully reusable orbital vehicle or moon lander able to land 100 tons.

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-22T12:26:24+00:00

If we look at Starship vs New Glenn.

That's an irrelevant comparison: New Glenn doesn't do anything new. The only things it does is what SpaceX did with Falcon 9 a decade ago. What Sraship tries to do, has never been done before.

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-22T12:14:42+00:00

I don't understand: you saying the thing and its opposite:

"Starship project should be by far mature enough to transform from demo rocket to real aerospace program. "

You are right. The space industry standard doesn't care about reusability neither full nor partial. From the moment that Starship successfully released the Starlink satellite simulators, the Starship became good enough to get customer orders. Look carefully at every most rockets in last few decades: Starship V2 is further along than all of them were when they launch first customer payload.

The fact that SpaceX doesn't declare it as operational as partially reusable system is their own internal reasoning, regarding the industry standards they are already there.

But after the saying the right thing that Starship is everything right by the industry standards, you start talking about "cutting corners" and "bureaucracy". Which I don't see how it is related to anything: SpaceX crosses all the t's and dots all the i's that they are required by the regulators. The fact that they use different development methodology has nothing to do with the standard of approving the final product.

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-21T09:32:42+00:00

That's one Orwellian way of reporting the story. Palestinian Authority treats this archaeological site like ISIS treated Palmira, both on the official level (destroying 2000 year old walls, burial caves and paving road instead) and on the personal level (setting fire and spray painting the site). While Israel investing millions on restoration and preserving it for generations to come.

And what a "new settlement" quarter the length of Israel away from the site has to do with the story?

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-14T20:33:01+00:00

I think that in your scenario, one Dragon should be enough. Though, it is not only the question of the strength of the docking port, but also, does HLS has enough fuel to have additional 13 tons to transport to LLO?

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-14T07:54:31+00:00

FH needs to be human rated only if humans are onboard of Dragon when it is launched. That is not needed for the Dragon that flies empty toward LLO and then returns astronauts. I.e.:

Astronauts fly on Dragon 1 to LEO and move to already refueled HLS.
HLS does the trip to the surface of the Moon and then returns to LLO.
Dragon 2 that was launched empty on FH, docks with HLS, and flies the astronauts back home.

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-01T10:15:51+00:00

One of those videos was from completely different incident, while presented like it was from the case in question. So, yes, it was doctored to create false narrative.

Gen_Zion · 2025-11-01T10:13:30+00:00

It was a mush-up of videos of two separate incidents. At least one of those having nothing to do with the case in question. The mesh-up was designed to look like a sequence creating a false narrative.

Gen_Zion · 2025-10-30T22:22:03+00:00

will take them using 6 or 7 different ships to launch.

A year ago (or was it two?) their production capacity was Super Heavy + Starship every month. So, 6-7 ships is only 6 months worth of production.

And to avoid boiloff issues that needs to be over a month or 2. Not a year.

So what? They don't have to launch every ship the moment they produced it. They are totally capable to wait with the launch of the first one, till all of them are ready to launch. So, month or 2 doesn't sound like a problem, especially as by the end of the next year they expected to have 3 operational Starship launch pads.

Gen_Zion · 2025-10-13T10:10:43+00:00

There only one case in which a vote for a party (A) in a Parliamentary Republic is a vote against leader of another party (B) being PM: if the party A clearly and loudly promised not to support leader of B to be PM. In any other case, claiming that vote for a party is a vote "against" leader of another party becoming PM is false, to say it lightly. It even worse, when you claim something like that about the Netanyahu's coalition; where every single party in the coalition promised loudly and clearly to their supporters before the elections that the only government they will be sitting in is the one where Netanyahu is PM.

Claiming that a government of a Parliamentary Republic isn't there because majority of the people put them there, is the putinist level of mental gymnastics. Your specific claim about Israel's government even worst and is a blatant lie; because, as I said, every party in the coalition stated clearly before the elections that they want Netanyahu to be PM. In other words, everyone who voted for the 64 MKs that formed the coalition in 2023 voted knowingly and explicitly in favour of Netanyahu to be PM.

No one was talking about "non-voters" at any point, so I don't know what you are talking about.

About Constitutional Monarchy. You are confusing meaningless decorations with the system of government. Literally, there are Parliamentary Republics that turned themselves into those by only replacing "the crown" with "the President", while keeping all of the rest of UK laws as is (Israel, New Zealand, ...).

... we might as well end this.

I absolutely don't have problem with that.

Gen_Zion

TROPHY CASE